Welcome to the Allegheny County, wherein lies the erstwhile city of Pittsburgh, PA
Last week, the county council (a largely unnecessary legislative body) passed a county-wide ban on smoking in workplaces. Opposition from restaurants and bars was brushed aside by dissing their argument – which was that the ban would create an unfair advantage to restaurants and bars outside of the county, where no such ban exists (or probably ever will in SWPA).
This week, the county executive (love the business friendly title? Don’t be fooled) is threatening to veto the ban. It seems that the State Senate just amended the fledgling gambling law to ALLOW smoking in state casinos. The executive’s argument – the casinos would enjoy an unfair advantage over the other bars and restaurants in the county (as if the slot machines do not already provide said advantage)!!
County government needs to get its story straight – either the ban creates an unfair advantage, or it doesn’t!!
Friday, September 29, 2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Term Limits
The Congress of the United States should be subjected to term limits!
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
Muhammad's innovations
This appears to be the difference between the Islamic world and the west.
A world leader, who denigrated Jesus, or even John, would be thought ill of; perhaps called on it in the press. You certainly would not see a group of Episcopalians burning that leader in effigy in Times Square!
Why? The Christian West actually practices tolerance. Plus, we spend much time doing something they don't -- working at our jobs! We can do that because we are not slaves to a murderous, blood-thirsty ideology keeping us trapped in the seventh century.
BTW, wasn’t it Muhammad who said that true believers should spread the faith by the sword, if necessary?
Hmmm.....
Friday, September 15, 2006
PA Supreme Court architect of their own pay raise?
Wow,
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)